Fundamentalism, especially of the variety driving groups like Hamas or regimes like Iran’s, doesn’t operate within the bounds of rational cost-benefit analysis. Instead, it strengthens from rigid ideological convictions and apocalyptic religious visions ...
By Dr. Tim Orr
Western societies often use familiar explanations in conversations about extremism. We often frame fundamentalism as a reaction to poverty, inequality, or political grievances. While this narrative is comforting in its simplicity, it misses the mark. Fundamentalism, especially of the variety driving groups like Hamas or regimes like Iran’s, doesn’t operate within the bounds of rational cost-benefit analysis. Instead, it strengthens from rigid ideological convictions and apocalyptic religious visions that defy Western notions of logic and compromise.
Many in the West view fundamentalism through a "cause and effect" lens, as though extremism is the inevitable byproduct of poor material conditions or foreign interference. Two common arguments dominate this perspective:
This framework is appealing because it offers a tangible way to "fix" the problem. If extremism stems from material deprivation or political grievances, then aid programs or diplomatic overtures should, theoretically, resolve it. Unfortunately, this approach overlooks the deeper ideological currents driving fundamentalism.
The idea that fundamentalist groups act as rational actors underestimates the ideological fervor at the heart of their actions. Groups like Hamas or Hezbollah prioritize their religious goals over the well-being of their communities. Consider their strategy of embedding military assets in civilian areas. To the outside observer, this seems irrational and counterproductive, inviting retaliatory strikes and civilian casualties. Yet within their ideological framework, martyrdom and propaganda are not just acceptable but strategic tools. These actions align perfectly with their goals of portraying themselves as victims and mobilizing global outrage against their enemies (Qutb, 2000).
When the speaker, Elica Le Bon, describes fundamentalism as "insanity," she isn’t dismissing it as chaotic or nonsensical. Instead, she highlights its unwavering adherence to a worldview that justifies violence as a sacred duty (Le Bon, 2024). For instance, Iran’s Twelver Shia eschatology teaches that the return of the 12th Imam—a messianic figure—is contingent on the destruction of Israel. This apocalyptic belief transforms geopolitics into a religious crusade, where pragmatic considerations like diplomacy or economic sanctions hold little sway (Nasr, 2006).
By framing fundamentalism as a reaction to external conditions, Western narratives unintentionally excuse extremist actions. This narrative shifts focus away from the agency and responsibility of groups like Hamas or the Iranian regime, portraying their violence as an unfortunate but understandable response to perceived injustices.
Strategies rooted in this framework often lead to appeasement or misguided developmental aid. For example, the Obama administration’s nuclear deal with Iran provided billions of dollars in sanctions relief, assuming that economic engagement would moderate the regime’s behavior. Instead, the regime funneled much of this money into its proxy networks, further destabilizing the region and emboldening its ideological ambitions (Maloney, 2015).
To understand fundamentalism, we must recognize its religious and apocalyptic foundations. For the Iranian regime, the destruction of Israel is not merely a political aim but a religious imperative. Twelver Shia theology teaches that global justice—heralded by the return of the Mahdi—requires the annihilation of Israel. This belief system creates an uncompromising worldview where no material aid or diplomatic engagement can displace their eschatological goals (Nasr, 2006).
Fundamentalist ideologies thrive on stark dichotomies, dividing the world into "believers" and "infidels." This binary thinking leaves no room for coexistence or compromise. Violence becomes not only justified but divinely mandated. For groups like ISIS or Hezbollah, atrocities are framed as acts of divine justice, reinforcing their black-and-white view of the world (Roy, 2004).
Western societies often fail to grasp the emotional and cultural dimensions of fundamentalism. Concepts like martyrdom, sacrifice, and cosmic justice resonate deeply within these movements, providing moral and spiritual validation for their actions. Western materialist perspectives prioritize economic and political concerns and struggle to comprehend the fervor driving these ideologies (Juergensmeyer, 2000).
One of the West’s critical blind spots is its tendency to project its own values onto other cultures. The primacy of individualism, economic stability, and rational self-interest is assumed to be universal. This projection leads to policies that misinterpret fundamentalist motivations, assuming that material improvements or diplomatic gestures will address their grievances (Huntington, 1996).
The West has a cultural reluctance to confront the concept of "evil" as an independent force. This hesitation often leads to an underestimation of inherently destructive ideologies. The appeasement of Nazi Germany in the 1930s serves as a cautionary tale, illustrating the catastrophic consequences of failing to recognize and confront malevolent ideologies early (Shirer, 1960).
Andrew Delbanco, in his book The Death of Satan: How Americans Have Lost the Sense of Evil (1995), argues that Western societies have increasingly sanitized the idea of evil, relegating it to psychological or sociological categories. This moral disengagement leaves us ill-equipped to deal with genuine malevolence. Delbanco suggests that the West’s discomfort with acknowledging evil stems from its secular framework, which often reduces human actions to environmental or material causes rather than recognizing moral or spiritual corruption. This failure to confront evil allows destructive ideologies to fester under the guise of legitimate grievances, obscuring their true nature.
Fundamentalist groups are adept at exploiting Western assumptions. Hamas and Hezbollah, for example, weaponize civilian casualties and propaganda to cast themselves as victims. These tactics obscure their culpability and shift blame onto their adversaries, undermining Western resolve to address the root causes of conflict (Levitt, 2006).
Addressing fundamentalism effectively requires acknowledging its ideological nature. Policymakers must understand the religious, cultural, and historical contexts that shape these movements. Containment and disruption—not appeasement—should form the cornerstone of Western strategies (Lewis, 2002).
The West must move beyond moral relativism and unequivocally condemn the destructiveness of fundamentalist ideologies. This clarity is essential for crafting policies prioritizing protecting democratic values and human rights (Kagan, 2008).
Engaging with fundamentalism demands a pragmatic, security-oriented approach. This involves resisting attempts at ideological reconciliation and focusing on tangible measures to safeguard global stability and human dignity (Fukuyama, 2006).
The Western tendency to rationalize fundamentalism as a response to material grievances has led to ineffective policies and a dangerous underestimation of extremist ideologies. By recognizing the ideological roots of fundamentalism and adopting a more principled and pragmatic approach, the West can begin to address the true nature of this global challenge.
Delbanco, A. (1995). The Death of Satan: How Americans Have Lost the Sense of Evil. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Fukuyama, F. (2006). America at the Crossroads: Democracy, Power, and the Neoconservative Legacy. Yale University Press.
Huntington, S. P. (1996). The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. Simon & Schuster.
Juergensmeyer, M. (2000). Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious Violence. University of California Press.
Kagan, R. (2008). The Return of History and the End of Dreams. Alfred A. Knopf.
Le Bon, E. (2024, December 8). The Real Reason Iran Wants to Destroy Israel [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-dGyYxdwcE
Levitt, M. (2006). Hamas: Politics, Charity, and Terrorism in the Service of Jihad. Yale University Press.
Lewis, B. (2002). What Went Wrong?: The Clash Between Islam and Modernity in the Middle East. Harper Perennial.
Maloney, S. (2015). Iran's Political Economy since the Revolution. Cambridge University Press.
Nasr, V. (2006). The Shia Revival: How Conflicts within Islam Will Shape the Future. W. W. Norton & Company.
Qutb, S. (2000). Milestones. Islamic Book Service.
Roy, O. (2004). Globalized Islam: The Search for a New Ummah. Columbia University Press.
Shirer, W. L. (1960). The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany. Simon & Schuster.
Tim Orr is a scholar of Islam, Evangelical minister, conference speaker, and interfaith consultant with over 30 years of experience in cross-cultural ministry. He holds six degrees, including a master’s in Islamic studies from the Islamic College in London. Tim taught Religious Studies for 15 years at Indiana University Columbus and is now a Congregations and Polarization Project research associate at the Center for the Study of Religion and American Culture at Indiana University Indianapolis. He has spoken at universities, including Oxford University, Imperial College London, the University of Tehran, Islamic College London, and mosques throughout the U.K. His research focuses on American Evangelicalism, Islamic antisemitism, and Islamic feminism, and he has published widely, including articles in Islamic peer-reviewed journals and three books.